Buildings lie in ruin in Lebanon, near the Israel-Lebanon border, following the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. (Reuters photo)
Dec 3, 2024 19:28 IST First published on: Dec 3, 2024 at 18:29 IST
The 60-day deal between Hezbollah and Israel, brokered by the US and supported by France, which came into effect on November 27, seeks to enforce UN Resolution 1701. The resolution was adopted in 2006 to end hostilities between the two sides, maintain a buffer zone and report violations. The buffer zone stretches between the Blue Line, a temporary line of withdrawal for Israeli forces set by the UN in 2000 and the Litani River in southern Lebanon. The current deal envisages Hezbollah moving its infrastructure, weapons and fighters to the north of the Litani River and Israeli forces moving south to the Blue Line over 60 days.
The UN 1701 mechanism — the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) retaining control of the buffer zone — remains in principle, while the onus of implementing the deal and holding the 60-day ceasefire rests with the Lebanese and Israeli governments. Even though agreeing to the deal, both Hezbollah and Israel have warned they would act in “self-defence” should the other party violate the deal or ceasefire. Given the deep mutual suspicion and continuing war in Gaza, the deal’s success appears doubtful.
The deal is predicated on the assumption that the Lebanese government can make commitments on behalf of Hezbollah, a political and armed group that has, for decades, resided as a “state within a state” within Lebanon. Hezbollah and its allies have won more than 60 of the 128 parliamentary seats in the democratic elections. For years, Hezbollah’s presence in southern Lebanon has been viewed as a “security guarantee” against Israel, which has gone to war with Lebanon four times.
The agreement stipulates a temporary ceasefire and aims to create conditions leading to a permanent ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel. The US has agreed to lead a monitoring mechanism. However, the agreement prohibits the US or any other country from bringing in troops to enforce the deal. In formal briefings, US officials have asserted that since Hezbollah has been weakened during the war with Israel, it is a great opportunity to build up the LAF as well as create collective political will in Lebanon to pass on security entirely to its army, diminishing Hezbollah’s role in the country. Counting on help from other countries, especially France, the US wishes to change the course of history in Lebanon, including the trajectory of the country’s relations with Israel and Iran. Achieving this goal in 60 days seems a tall order. It also remains to be seen as to what the state of affairs will be after 60 days, and whether the Trump administration would like to remain engaged, and if so, in what manner.
Within the Israeli government, the dominant far-right elements strongly advocate the continuous undermining of Hezbollah. There is also hope of aggressive US military support under the Trump administration, especially against Iran. However, the Israeli PM is known to have agreed to the deal because Israeli forces suffered significant losses since the ground offensive into southern Lebanon began on October 1. The country’s media reported that within a month, over 35 soldiers were killed and over 900 were wounded in northern front operations. The reports further indicated that top army leadership had assessed that military objectives with respect to Hezbollah and Hamas had been achieved to enable the political process. However, the threat of Iranian retaliation to the October 26 Israeli aerial attacks on Iran continues to loom large. For the past few months, the Israeli media has been repeatedly pointing to the erosion of public support for the wars, especially because of the failure to bring back the hostages home in about 14 months.
Credible US media inputs suggest that the Trump team too had indicated during the elections that Israel should complete its operations before the President-elect assumed office. This was in line with Trump’s declared policy of “stopping wars” and not “starting wars”. Moreover, his policy of demanding that NATO allies pay their share for the European security shield would also be applicable to Israel which has recently benefited from the deployment of the super-expensive US THAAD aerial defence system and 100 US military personnel.
The US team has called for re-energising efforts for a Gaza ceasefire. However, there are sharp differences between the Palestinian view — backed by key nations — of embarking on a roadmap to a two-state solution as part of the ceasefire deal on Gaza and far-right elements within the Israeli government, who have been pushing for total control of security in Gaza.
most read
With far-right elements taking an increasingly belligerent approach, the war in Gaza has expanded to multiple fronts for Israel as a result of which some in the country advocate the targeting of Iranian nuclear sites and effecting a regime change in Tehran. Though the Trump team has claimed success for the Lebanon deal as the “Trump effect”, it is quite likely that the Trump administration would use Russia-like sanctions rather than direct or indirect military means to secure US security interests in the region.
Lastly, the day the deal took effect, al-Qaeda linked jihadi groups of Syria, backed by regional actors, launched a massive attack on Syrian forces in northwestern parts taking over control of many pockets, including Aleppo city. The re-booting of the Syrian conflict by regional state and non-state actors, after years of lying low, is expected to unleash serious violence in the region, whereby no single actor would have means to re-establish security and stability in the years ahead. As a result, global security and commercial interests in the region too are likely to experience further distress.
The writer is a security analyst and former Director General of Police
